Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage CouncilFiscal Year 2021 / ML 2020 Request for Funding

D ate: May 30, 2019

P ro g ram o r P ro ject T itle: Southeast Minnesota Protection and Restoration Phase 8

Fund s Req uested : $12,539,300

Manag er's Name: Richard BiskeT itle: Freshwater Conservation Program DirectorO rg anizatio n: The Nature ConservancyAd d ress : 1101 West River ParkwayAd d ress 2: Suite 200C ity: Minneapolis, MN 55415O ff ice Numb er: 612-331-0766Mo b ile Numb er: 651-564-0591Email: rbiske@tnc.orgWeb site: nature.org/

C o unty Lo catio ns: Dodge, Fillmore, Houston, Wabasha, and Winona.

Eco reg io ns in which wo rk wil l take p lace:

Southeast Forest

Activity typ es:

Protect in EasementRestoreEnhanceProtect in Fee

P rio rity reso urces ad d ressed b y activity:

ForestPrairieHabitat

Abstract:

This project will protect approximately 3,610 acres using conservation easement and fee land acquisition and restore and enhanceapproximately 670 acres of declining habitat for important wildlife species. Actions will occur in strategically targeted areas ofbiodiversity significance within the Blufflands of Southeast Minnesota, resulting in increased public access and improved wildlifehabitat.

Design and scope of work:

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Minnesota Land Trust (MLT) and The Trust for Public Land (TPL), in partnership, will use Outdoor HeritageFunds to invest in habitat protection and restoration within the Blufflands of Southeast Minnesota. We will expand and connect largercontiguous blocks of protected lands, allowing land managers to restore, enhance and maintain high-quality habitats at a scale difficultto accomplish with fragmented ownership. Benefits of this program include the increased effectiveness of frequent prescribed firenecessary to reclaim "goat prairies" and oak savanna, and regenerate oak hardwood forests at a larger scale. Protecting and managingthese lands is not only important for ecological reasons, but also benefits public use and enjoyment of these lands and the resourcesthey provide. This proposal will enhance prior conservation investments and ensure that the legacy of the Blufflands is preserved in ahigh quality condition for future generations.

There are 86 different native plant community types mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS), covering nearly 149,670 acreswithin the project area. There are 183 species of state listed rare plants and animals, many of which are concentrated on 749 sites ofbiodiversity significance. This program has a proven track record of protecting, restoring and enhancing lands that meet both state andlocal priorities for biodiversity, land access and watershed health.

Page 1 o f 14

FA 02

In addition, despite the area's high demand for outdoor recreation and having more Species in G reatest Conservation Need thananywhere else in the state, only 5% of the region is open to the public.

Conservation Easements: MLT will acquire approximately 1,825 acres of conservation easements and develop restoration and habitat management plans for easedlands. MLT will identify potential projects within targeted priority areas through a RFP process coupled with local outreach via SWCDoffices. This competitive landowner bid process will rank projects based on ecological value and cost, prioritizing the best projects andsecuring them at the lowest cost to the state.

Fee Acquisition: TNC and TPL will coordinate with MN DNR on all potential fee-title acquisitions. TNC and TPL will assist the participating DNR Divisions byconducting all or some of the following activities: initial site reviews, negotiations with the willing seller, appraisals, environmentalreviews and acquisition of fee title. TNC and TPL will transfer lands to the DNR except when TNC ownership is appropriate. Feeacquisition of approximately 1,215 acres of forest and 570 acres of prairie along 1.5 miles of coldwater trout stream is planned.

Restoration and Enhancement: TNC will restore/enhance approximately 470 acres of bluff prairie, floodplain, riparian habitat and forest. MLT will restore and enhance200 acres of habitat on existing and new easements. Ecological restoration enhancement management plans will be developed incoordination with the appropriate DNR staff, landowners and/or hired subcontractors.

Results to date: Conservation Easements: 2,435 acres Fee Land Acquisition: 4,275 acres 27 miles of stream protected Restoration and Enhancement: 983 acres

Which sections of the Minnesota Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan are applicable to thisproject:

H1 Protect priority land habitatsH3 Improve connectivity and access to recreation

Which other plans are addressed in this proposal:

Minnesota's Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025Outdoor Heritage Fund: A 25 Year Framework

Describe how your program will advance the indicators identif ied in the plans selected:

OHF 25 Year Framework Indicator 1: Protect forest habitat through acquisition in fee or easement to prevent parcelization and fragmentation and to provide theability to access and manage landlocked public properties. 4,275 acres opened to public hunting, fishing and recreation to date,improving access and management. Indicator 2: Protect, enhance and restore habitat for wildlife in rivers, cold water streams and associated upland habitat. 27 miles ofcoldwater trout streams protected, 12.5 opened to fishing. Restoration and enhancement from bluff to stream on 983 acres. Indicator 3: Protect and restore bluff prairies. 460 acres protected/enhanced. Indicator 4: Restore forest based habitat that has experienced substantial decline in area in recent decades. over 500 acres of forestrestored or enhanced.

Wildlife Action Plan Indicator 1: Stabilize and increase SG CN populations on: oak savanna, native prairie, cliffs and bluffs and stream habitats. 357 acres ofbluff prairies enhanced.

Which LSOHC section priorit ies are addressed in this proposal:S o utheast Fo rest:

Protect forest habitat though acquisition in fee or easement to prevent parcelization and fragmentation and to provide the ability toaccess and manage landlocked public properties

Describe how your program will produce and demonstrate a signif icant and permanent conservation

Page 2 o f 14

legacy and/or outcomes f or f ish, game, and wildlif e as indicated in the LSOHC priorit ies:

Over 7 square miles (4,275 acres) have been opened for public hunting and fishing and allowing increased management within habitatcomplexes. This program has protected habitat for 71 different Species in G reatest Conservation Need, including 5 classified asendangered and 17 considered threatened. The importance of habitat protection in Southeast Minnesota was highlighted recently bynew research from TNC scientists. They identified the Blufflands as a resilient landscape that gives native species the greatestopportunity to adapt to a changing climate. Investing in the protection, restoration, and enhancement of resilient landscapes like theblufflands will have a bigger impact on future wildlife, as these areas are expected to remain viable habitat for more of our nativespecies as climate change shifts their historic ranges.

Describe how the proposal uses science-based targeting that leverages or expands corridors andcomplexes, reduces f ragmentation or protects areas identif ied in the MN County Biological Survey:

Southeast MN benefits from a wealth of conservation planning and biological indices and analyses. Our partnership uses existing plans,like the watershed-based Landscape Stewardship Plans and DNR’s Wildlife Action Network to identify priority areas to focus our effortsand resources. Individual projects are assessed based on their significance to biodiversity (according to data from the MN BiologicalSurvey), along with several other important criteria such as: - location within a priority area - health and extent of existing natural communities - areas of significant biodiversity and native plant communities - proximity to existing conservation lands - parcel size - importance for stream quality - risk of conversion

How does the proposal address habitats that have signif icant value f or wildlif e species of greatestconservation need, and/or threatened or endangered species, and list targeted species:

Most of the projects selected for this proposal are located in complexes of biodiversity significance, as identified by MBS. Many are alsoin close proximity to current state land. Buidling and expanding contiguous blocks of habitat protects habitat continuity in a fragmentedlandscape.

Sedimentation and erosion are major threats to fish in the region. Protecting and enhancing upland natural communities, especially onthe steep bluffs that flank most trout streams, will help prevent additional erosion. Aquatic habitat also benefits from protection oftrout stream banks and floodplains. The water quality benefit that comes with the protection of forested upland areas is significant andcontributes to improved trout and non-game fish and mussel habitat.

Proposed projects contain 100 occurrences of Species in G reatest Conservation Need (SG CN) identified by the Natural HeritageInventory, including 57 different species/communities/assemblages. Completed projects include a total of 158 occurrencesrepresenting 71 different species/communities/assemblages. Specific habitats include bluff prairie, oak savanna, barrens prairie, oak-hickory woodland, jack pine-oak woodland, white pine - oak/maple forest and maple basswood hardwood forest. These habitatssupport species including: tri-colored and northern long-eared bats, timber rattlesnake, Blanding's turtle, western foxsnake, NorthAmerican racer, American ginseng, great Indian plantain, plains wild indigo and red-shouldered hawk.

Identif y indicator species and associated quantit ies this habitat will typically support:

Natural populations, including healthy populations with good habitat, vary among locations, and also rise and fall within lakes andrivers. Most fish surveys conducted by DNR produce an index of abundance (catch per unit effort) rather than a population estimate.This project is estimated to benefit 2,500 pounds of brook trout and 3,250 pounds of brown trout. The program also benefits many otherspecies unique to Southeast Minnesota and other species including rusty patch bumblebee, monarch butterfly, timber rattlesnake, bullsnake, Blanding's turtle, Louisiana water thrush, wild turkey and whitetail deer.

Outcomes:P ro g rams in so utheast fo rest reg io n:

Large corridors and complexes of biologically diverse wildlife habitat typical of the unglaciated region are restored and protected Wewill track the acres of priority parcels protected within the Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) identified as priorities in regional planning.Success within each COA will be determined based on the percentage of area protected, restored and/or enhanced.

How will you sustain and/or maintain this work af ter the Outdoor Heritage Funds are expended:

Tracts acquired will be transferred to the state for ongoing management except when TNC ownership is appropriate. Acquisition

Page 3 o f 14

projects will be near or adjacent to existing protected lands, including state-owned lands and lands under conservation easement,allowing for the expansion of management activities that are already taking place. Habitats cleared of invasive species will bemaintained with prescribed fire and other practices depending on funding. Protection and restoration projects will improve futureprescribed fire and maintenance activities through economies of scale. The tracts protected and enhanced as part of this proposal alsomeet the prioritization for Minnesota's Wildlife Action Plan. MN DNR has been successful in securing federal habitat enhancementfunding.

Land protected through conservation easements will be sustained by MLT through a state-of-the art easement stewardship standardsand practices. MLT is a nationally-accredited and insured land trust with a successful easement stewardship program that includesannual property monitoring and defending the easements as necessary. In addition, MLT encourages landowners to undertake activeecological management of their properties, provides them with habitat management plans and works with them to secure resources(expertise and funding) to undertake these activities over time.

Explain the things you will do in the f uture to maintain project outcomes:

Year S o urce o f Funds S tep 1 S tep 2 S tep 3Every 4-6 yea rs US Fish a nd Wildlife Service prescribed fireEvery 4-6 yea rs G a me a nd Fish Fund prescribed fire2022 a ndperpetua lly

MLT Ea s ement Stewa rdship a nd Enfo rcementFund

Annua l mo nito ring inperpetuity Enfo rcement a s necessa ry

What is the degree of t iming/opportunist ic urgency and why it is necessary to spend public money f orthis work as soon as possible:

Habitat fragmentation continues to plague the region, caused by the continued growth from Rochester and demand for ruralresidential housing and demand for cropland. This program and partner success has generated several large protection and restorationprojects that are increasingly rare to the region due to subdivision. When larger landholdings come available, it's crucial to move fast toprotect them before they're split up. Protecting large parcels while expanding existing protected areas helps improve the efficiencyand effectiveness of ecological management and ensures the long-term viability of the ecosystem.

Does this program include leverage in f unds:

Yes

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) State Wildlife G rant funds are used by TNC to enhance oak savanna and bluff prairie on privatelands within priority complexes where this project operates. TNC will use US Forest Service funds to work with private landownersadjacent to public ownership to conduct prescribed fire across ownership boundaries, increasing the scale and efficiency ofmanagement.

The Minnesota Land Trust encourages landowners to fully or partially donate the value of conservation easements as part of itslandowner bid protocol. An estimated leverage of $360,000 of donated value from landowners from easement acquisition is aconservative estimate.

Partners are also leveraging private funds to cover a portion of travel and direct support services cost totaling $291,700.

Relationship to other f unds:

Environmental and Natural Resource Trust FundClean Water Fund

D escrib e the relatio nship o f the fund s:

This project implements priority activities identified in watershed protection plans developed with support from the Environmental andNatural Resources Trust Fund and Clean Water Fund.

Per MS 97A.056, Subd. 24, Any state agency or organization requesting a direct appropriat ion f rom theOHF must inf orm the LSOHC at the t ime of the request f or f unding is made, whether the request issupplanting or is a substitution f or any previous f unding that was not f rom a legacy f und and wasused f or the same purpose:

This proposal does not substitute or supplant previous funding that was not from a Legacy fund.

Page 4 o f 14

Describe the source and amount of non-OHF money spent f or this work in the past:

Appro priatio nYear S o urce Amo unt

2013 The Na ture Co nserva ncy $67,6612014 The Na ture Co nserva ncy $2,173,4592015 The Na ture Co nserva ncy $14,2002016 The Trust fo r Public La nd $250,0002016 The Na ture Co nserva ncy $18,1102017 The Na ture Co nserva ncy $1,716

Activity Details

Requirements:

If funded, this proposal will meet all applicable criteria set forth in MS 97A.056 - Yes

Will county board or other local government approval be formally sought prior to acquisition, per 97A.056 subd 13(j) - No

We will follow the county/township board notification processes as directed by current statutory language.

Is the land you plan to acquire (fee title) free of any other permanent protection - No

A proposed fee land acquisition project has a trout stream angling access easement on it that was considered in the appraisal. Onelarge fee land acquisition project has a RIM easement on a portion of it that was considered in the appraisal. We will follow guidanceestablished by the Outdoor Heritage Fund to proceed.

Is the land you plan to acquire (easement) free of any other permanent protection - Yes

Will restoration and enhancement work follow best management practices including MS 84.973 Pollinator Habitat Program - Yes

Is the restoration and enhancement activity on permanently protected land per 97A.056, subd 13(f), tribal lands, and/or public waters per MS103G .005, Subd. 15 - Yes (WMA, S NA, AMA, P ermanently P ro tected C o nservatio n EasementsC o unty/Municip al, P ub lic Waters , S tateFo rests , O HF Acq uired T NC P reserve)

Do you anticipate federal funds as a match for this program - No

Land Use:

Will there be planting of corn or any crop on OHF land purchased or restored in this program - Yes

Explain

Short-term use of agricultural crops is an accepted best practice for preparing a site for prairie restoration. For example, short-termuse of soybeans could be used for restorations in order to control weed seedbeds prior to prairie planting. In some cases thisnecessitates the use of G MO treated products to facilitate herbicide use in order to control weeds present in the seedbank,however neonicotinoids will not be used. MLT - The purpose of the Minnesota Land Trust's conservation easements is to protect existing high quality natural habitat and topreserve opportunities for future restoration. As such, we restrict any agricultural lands and use on the properties. In cases inwhich there are agricultural lands associated with the larger property, we will either carve the agricultural area out of theconservation easement, or in some limited cases, we may include a small percentage of agricultural lands if it is not feasible to carvethose areas out. In such cases, however, we will not use OHF funds to pay the landowners for that portion of the conservationeasement.

Is this land currently open for hunting and fishing - No

Will the land be open for hunting and fishing after completion - Yes

None

Will the eased land be open for public use - No

Page 5 o f 14

Are there currently trails or roads on any of the acquisitions on the parcel list - No

Will new trails or roads be developed or improved as a result of the OHF acquisition - No

Accomplishment T imeline

Activity Appro ximate Date Co mpletedPurcha se a g reements o r o ptio ns o n a cquis itio n o f fee la nd June 30, 2023Purcha se a g reements o r o ptio ns o n co nserva tio n ea sements June 30, 2023Acquis itio n o f fee la nd June 30, 2024Strea m co rrido r a nd flo o dpla in res to ra tio n June 30, 2025Bluff pra irie a nd o a k sa va nna enha ncement June 30, 2026Ea sement a cquis itio n June 30, 2024

Page 6 o f 14

Budget Spreadsheet

T o tal Amo unt o f Req uest: $12,539,300

Bud g et and C ash Leverag e

Budg et Name LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lPerso nnel $888,500 $0 $888,500Co ntra cts $1,431,000 $0 $1,431,000Fee Acquis itio n w/ PILT $6,850,000 $0 $6,850,000Fee Acquis itio n w/o PILT $0 $0 $0Ea sement Acquis itio n $1,800,000 $360,000 La ndo wners $2,160,000Ea sement Stewa rds hip $432,000 $0 $432,000Tra ve l $39,000 $2,500 Priva te $41,500Pro fess io na l Services $664,000 $0 $664,000Direct Suppo rt Services $226,800 $235,500 Priva te ,Priva te $462,300DNR La nd Acquis itio n Co s ts $70,000 $0 $70,000Ca pita l Equipment $0 $0 $0O ther Equipment/To o ls $15,000 $0 $15,000Supplies/Ma teria ls $3,000 $0 $3,000DNR IDP $120,000 $0 $120,000

To ta l $12,539,300 $598,000 - $13,137,300

P erso nnel

Po sitio n FT E O ver # o f years LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lTPL Pro tectio n a nd Leg a l Sta ff 0.30 3.00 $147,500 $0 $147,500TNC Pro ject Ma na g ement, Pro tectio n a nd G ra nts Admin 1.32 3.00 $392,000 $0 $392,000MLT Pro tectio n Sta ff 0.75 3.00 $214,000 $0 $214,000MLT Resto ra tio n Sta ff 0.50 3.00 $135,000 $0 $135,000

To ta l 2.87 12.00 $888,500 $0 - $888,500

Bud g et and C ash Leverag e b y P artnership

Budg et Name Partnership LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lPerso nnel Trust fo r Public La nd $147,500 $0 $147,500Co ntra cts Trust fo r Public La nd $300,000 $0 $300,000Fee Acquis itio n w/ PILT Trust fo r Public La nd $3,100,000 $0 $3,100,000Fee Acquis itio n w/o PILT Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $0 $0Ea sement Acquis itio n Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $0 $0Ea sement Stewa rds hip Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $0 $0Tra ve l Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $2,500 Priva te $2,500Pro fess io na l Services Trust fo r Public La nd $130,000 $0 $130,000Direct Suppo rt Services Trust fo r Public La nd $49,800 $49,800 Priva te $99,600DNR La nd Acquis itio n Co s ts Trust fo r Public La nd $40,000 $0 $40,000Ca pita l Equipment Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $0 $0O ther Equipment/To o ls Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $0 $0Supplies/Ma teria ls Trust fo r Public La nd $0 $0 $0DNR IDP Trust fo r Public La nd $90,000 $0 $90,000

To ta l - $3,857,300 $52,300 - $3,909,600

P erso nnel - T rust fo r P ub lic Land

Po sitio n FT E O ver # o f years LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lTPL Pro tectio n a nd Leg a l Sta ff 0.30 3.00 $147,500 $0 $147,500

To ta l 0.30 3.00 $147,500 $0 - $147,500

Budg et Name Partnership LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lPerso nnel The Na ture Co nserva ncy $392,000 $0 $392,000Co ntra cts The Na ture Co nserva ncy $553,000 $0 $553,000Fee Acquis itio n w/ PILT The Na ture Co nserva ncy $3,750,000 $0 $3,750,000

Page 7 o f 14

Fee Acquis itio n w/o PILT The Na ture Co nserva ncy $0 $0 $0Ea sement Acquis itio n The Na ture Co nserva ncy $0 $0 $0Ea sement Stewa rds hip The Na ture Co nserva ncy $0 $0 $0Tra ve l The Na ture Co nserva ncy $7,000 $0 $7,000Pro fess io na l Services The Na ture Co nserva ncy $150,000 $0 $150,000Direct Suppo rt Services The Na ture Co nserva ncy $82,700 $185,700 Priva te $268,400DNR La nd Acquis itio n Co s ts The Na ture Co nserva ncy $30,000 $0 $30,000Ca pita l Equipment The Na ture Co nserva ncy $0 $0 $0O ther Equipment/To o ls The Na ture Co nserva ncy $0 $0 $0Supplies/Ma teria ls The Na ture Co nserva ncy $1,000 $0 $1,000DNR IDP The Na ture Co nserva ncy $30,000 $0 $30,000

To ta l - $4,995,700 $185,700 - $5,181,400

P erso nnel - T he Nature C o nservancy

Po sitio n FT E O ver # o f years LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lTNC Pro ject Ma na g ement, Pro tectio n a nd G ra nts Admin 1.32 3.00 $392,000 $0 $392,000

To ta l 1.32 3.00 $392,000 $0 - $392,000

Budg et Name Partnership LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lPerso nnel Minnes o ta La nd Trust $349,000 $0 $349,000Co ntra cts Minnes o ta La nd Trust $578,000 $0 $578,000Fee Acquis itio n w/ PILT Minnes o ta La nd Trust $0 $0 $0Fee Acquis itio n w/o PILT Minnes o ta La nd Trust $0 $0 $0Ea sement Acquis itio n Minnes o ta La nd Trust $1,800,000 $360,000 La ndo wners $2,160,000Ea sement Stewa rds hip Minnes o ta La nd Trust $432,000 $0 $432,000Tra ve l Minnes o ta La nd Trust $32,000 $0 $32,000Pro fess io na l Services Minnes o ta La nd Trust $384,000 $0 $384,000Direct Suppo rt Services Minnes o ta La nd Trust $94,300 $0 $94,300DNR La nd Acquis itio n Co s ts Minnes o ta La nd Trust $0 $0 $0Ca pita l Equipment Minnes o ta La nd Trust $0 $0 $0O ther Equipment/To o ls Minnes o ta La nd Trust $15,000 $0 $15,000Supplies/Ma teria ls Minnes o ta La nd Trust $2,000 $0 $2,000DNR IDP Minnes o ta La nd Trust $0 $0 $0

To ta l - $3,686,300 $360,000 - $4,046,300

P erso nnel - Minneso ta Land T rust

Po sitio n FT E O ver # o f years LS O HC Request Anticipated Leverag e Leverag e S o urce T o ta lMLT Pro tectio n Sta ff 0.75 3.00 $214,000 $0 $214,000MLT Resto ra tio n Sta ff 0.50 3.00 $135,000 $0 $135,000

To ta l 1.25 6.00 $349,000 $0 - $349,000

Amount of Request: $12,539,300Amount of Leverage: $598,000Leverage as a percent of the Request: 4.77%DSS + Personnel: $1,115,300As a % of the total request: 8.89%Easement Stewardship: $432,000As a % of the Easement Acquisition: 24.00%

Ho w d id yo u d etermine which p o rtio ns o f the D irect S up p o rt S ervices o f yo ur shared sup p o rt services is d irect to this p ro g ram:

TNC: DSS is based on The Nature Conservancy's Federally Negotiated Rate (FNR) as proposed and subsequently approved by the USDept. of Interior on an annual basis. In this proposal we are requesting reimbursement of 7.5% of eligible base costs as determined byour annual FNR and based on suggestions from the Council in last year's hearings. The un-recovered portion of the approved rates

Page 8 o f 14

through the life of the grant is offered as leverage.

MLT: In a process that was approved by the DNR on March 17, 2017, Minnesota Land Trust determined our direct support services rate toinclude all of the allowable direct and necessary expenditures that are not captured in other line items in the budget, which is similarto the Land Trust's proposed federal indirect rate. We will apply this DNR approved rate only to personnel expenses to determine thetotal amount of the direct support services.

TPL: The Trust for Public Land's DSS request is based upon our federally approved indirect rate, which has been approved by the DNR.50% of these costs are requested from the grant and 50% is contributed as leverage.

What is includ ed in the co ntracts l ine?

TNC and TPL contract line item are dedicated to enhancement and restoration work. Typical contractors include private vendors andConservation Corps of MN/IA. MLT will use the contract budget item for three distinct purposes: to complete habitat management plans on the new easementacquisitions; for restoration plans and projects on existing easements; and for partnering with SWCD's on outreach for easementacquisition.

D o es the amo unt in the travel l ine includ e eq uip ment/vehicle rental? - Yes

Exp lain the amo unt in the travel l ine o uts id e o f trad itio nal travel co sts o f mileag e, fo o d , and lo d g ing :

Vehicle rental is also included.

D escrib e and exp lain leverag e so urce and co nf irmatio n o f fund s:

TNC and TPL will leverage privately sourced funds to cover direct support services (DSS) costs not reimbursed. TPL has leveraged private funds for travel. The Land Trust encourages landowners to donate value as a participant in the program. This leverage ($360,000) is a conservativeestimate of expected landownervera

D o es this p ro p o sal have the ab il ity to b e scalab le? - Yes

T ell us ho w this p ro ject wo uld b e scaled and ho w ad ministrative co sts are af fected , d escrib e the “eco no my o f scale” and ho wo utp uts wo uld chang e with red uced fund ing , i f ap p licab le :

Partially scalable- full funding allows larger projects to be completed. Personnel costs are associated with projects. Larger protection,enhancement and restoration projects, despite higher acquisition, easement or contract costs, allow for greater efficiency inpersonnel and administrative costs.

What is the co st p er easement fo r steward ship and exp lain ho w that amo unt is calculated ?

The average cost per easement to perpetually fund the Minnesota Land Trust's long-term monitoring and enforcement obligations is$24,000. This figure has been determined by using a detailed stewardship funding calculator or "cost analysis" which is the industrystandard according to the Land Trust Accreditation process. This cost analysis examines seventeen different categories of future annualexpenditures related to the management of the easement and then calculates what the Land Trust needs in one-time funding to coverthese various expenditures in perpetuity. In addition, the Land Trust seeks private contributions whenever possible to further leveragethese state funds. The Minnesota Land Trust reviews and updates this cost-analysis periodically to ensure that the organization willhave the capacity to fulfill its ongoing obligations. This cost-analysis is on file with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council staff andthe Land Trust shares a new version with the Council whenever updates are made.

Page 9 o f 14

Output Tables

T ab le 1a. Acres b y Reso urce T yp e

T ype Wetlands Pra iries Fo rest Habitats T o ta lResto re 0 0 0 200 200Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 570 1,215 0 1,785Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 0 0 0Pro tect in Ea sement 0 0 0 1,825 1,825Enha nce 0 0 470 0 470

To ta l 0 570 1,685 2,025 4,280

T ab le 1b . Ho w many o f these P rairie acres are Native P rairie?

T ype Native Pra irieResto re 0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility 40Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility 0Pro tect in Ea sement 0Enha nce 0

To ta l 40

T ab le 2. T o tal Req uested Fund ing b y Reso urce T yp e

T ype Wetlands Pra iries Fo rest Habitats T o ta lResto re $0 $150,000 $92,000 $658,500 $900,500Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $2,873,600 $5,134,400 $0 $8,008,000Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $0 $3,027,800 $3,027,800Enha nce $0 $125,000 $478,000 $0 $603,000

To ta l $0 $3,148,600 $5,704,400 $3,686,300 $12,539,300

T ab le 3. Acres within each Eco lo g ical S ectio n

T ype Metro /Urban Fo rest/Pra irie S E Fo rest Pra irie No rthern Fo rest T o ta lResto re 0 0 200 0 0 200Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 1,785 0 0 1,785Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility 0 0 0 0 0 0Pro tect in Ea sement 0 0 1,825 0 0 1,825Enha nce 0 0 470 0 0 470

To ta l 0 0 4,280 0 0 4,280

T ab le 4. T o tal Req uested Fund ing within each Eco lo g ical S ectio n

T ype Metro /Urban Fo rest/Pra irie S E Fo rest Pra irie No rthern Fo rest T o ta lResto re $0 $0 $900,500 $0 $0 $900,500Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $8,008,000 $0 $0 $8,008,000Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $3,027,800 $0 $0 $3,027,800Enha nce $0 $0 $603,000 $0 $0 $603,000

To ta l $0 $0 $12,539,300 $0 $0 $12,539,300

Page 10 o f 14

T ab le 5. Averag e C o st p er Acre b y Reso urce T yp e

T ype Wetlands Pra iries Fo rest HabitatsResto re $0 $0 $0 $3,293Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $5,041 $4,226 $0Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $0 $1,659Enha nce $0 $0 $1,017 $0

T ab le 6. Averag e C o st p er Acre b y Eco lo g ical S ectio n

T ype Metro /Urban Fo rest/Pra irie S E Fo rest Pra irie No rthern Fo restResto re $0 $0 $4,503 $0 $0Pro tect in Fee with Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $4,486 $0 $0Pro tect in Fee W/O Sta te PILT Lia bility $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pro tect in Ea sement $0 $0 $1,659 $0 $0Enha nce $0 $0 $1,283 $0 $0

Automatic system calculation / not entered by managers

T arg et Lake/S tream/River Feet o r Miles

1.5

I have read and und erstand S ectio n 15 o f the C o nstitutio n o f the S tate o f Minneso ta, Minneso ta S tatute 97A.056, and the C all fo rFund ing Req uest. I certify I am autho rized to sub mit this p ro p o sal and to the b est o f my kno wled g e the info rmatio n p ro vid ed istrue and accurate.

Page 11 o f 14

Parcel List

Exp lain the p ro cess used to select, rank and p rio ritize the p arcels :

Not Listed

Section 1 - Restore / Enhance Parcel List

Fi l lmo re

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n?Brig htsda le Sta te Fo rest Unit 10309206 25 $25,000 YesCho sen Va lley WMA 10412206 10 $4,000 YesG ribben Creek Sta te Fo res tUnit 10309228 30 $36,000 Yes

Willia m Pea s e WMA 10411207 25 $10,000 Yes

Ho usto n

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n?Chisho lm Va lley WMA 10307204 35 $14,000 YesFernda le Ridg e WMA 10407232 300 $120,000 Yes

Wino na

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n?Whitewa ter Pra irie 2 10810211 27 $67,500 YesWhitewa ter Sa va nna 10810211 65 $162,500 YesWhitewa ter Sa va nna 2 10810235 100 $30,000 YesWhitewa ter WMA 10810202 60 $180,000 Yes

Section 2 - Protect Parcel List

D o d g e

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n? Hunting ? Fishing ?Middle Fo rk ZumbroRiver SNA 10817224 175 $787,500 No Full Full

Middle Fo rk ZumbroRiver SNA 10817224 175 $787,500 No Full Full

Fi l lmo re

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n? Hunting ? Fishing ?Cho ice 10308211 102 $102,000 No Full FullCho ice WMA 6 10208212 120 $420,000 No Full FullCho ice WMA No rth 3 10208203 120 $480,000 No Full FullCho ice WMA No rth 5 10308234 80 $400,000 No Full FullDeer Creek SNA I 10313212 236 $705,000 No Full FullDeer Creek SNA II 10313213 159 $506,000 No Full FullFo restville 2 10212222 130 $455,000 No Full FullRushfo rd SB 2 10408222 160 $500,000 No Full Full

Ho usto n

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n? Hunting ? Fishing ?Mo ney Creek So uth 10406206 100 $100,000 No Full FullMo ney Creek So uth 10406206 100 $300,000 No Full FullWet Ba rk 3 10306230 325 $1,137,500 No Full Full

Page 12 o f 14

Wab asha

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n? Hunting ? Fishing ?McCa rthy La ke 10909206 138 $135,000 No Full FullMcCa rthy La ke 2 10909207 100 $450,000 No Full FullWa to pa Fo res t 10910210 320 $1,320,000 No Full FullWea ver Dunes 10909206 231 $250,000 No Full FullWhitewa ter WMAMa in 10909230 50 $252,000 No Full Full

Whitewa ter WMAMa in II 10909232 210 $486,000 No Full Full

Wino na

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st Existing Pro tectio n? Hunting ? Fishing ?Whitewa ter WMAMa in III 10710209 54 $277,900 No Full Full

Whitewa ter WMANo rth I 10710207 41 $259,000 No Full Full

Whitewa ter WMANo rth II 10710208 86 $624,900 No Full Full

Whitewa ter WMASo uth 10709231 430 $2,300,000 No Full Full

Whitewa ter WMASo uth II 10710226 543 $1,884,000 No Full Full

Section 2a - Protect Parcel with Bldgs

Fi l lmo re

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st # Bldg s? Bldg Imrpo ve Desc Value o f Bldg Dispo s itio n o fImpro vements

Cho ice WMA 7 10208202 570 $2,000,000 2 Fa rm building s a ndg ra in sheds $ Remo ve

Rush Creek 10408202 240 $825,000 1 shed $0 Remo ve

Wino na

Name T RDS Acres Est Co st # Bldg s? Bldg Imrpo ve Desc Value o f Bldg Dispo s itio n o fImpro vements

Mo ney Creek 10506230 850 $2,500,000 1 shed $0 Remo veMo ney Creek 10506230 850 $2,500,000 1 shed $0 Remo ve

Section 3 - Other Parcel Activity

No parcels with an other activity type.

Page 13 o f 14

Parcel Map

Southeast Minnesota Protection and RestorationPhase 8

Data Generated From Parcel List

Legend

Page 14 o f 14

The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, and Minnesota Land Trust are requesting $12,593,000 for the Southeast Minnesota Protection & Restoration Program.

The Blufflands Region of Southeast Minnesota contains

some of the highest quality, most diverse and least

protected wildlife habitat in Minnesota. This project will

invest in targeted land protection through fee simple and

conservation easement acquisitions and the restoration

of important habitat types. Projects will be prioritized to

develop significant complexes of protected habitats essential

for game and non-game species. All fee simple acquisitions

will be open to public hunting and fishing, thereby improving

access in this area largely in private ownership. This project

aims to protect 3% of the remaining areas of High or

Outstanding Biodiversity in the region as recognized by the

MN Biological survey.

ProtectionThis program will accomplish habitat protection at a meaningful scale to limit fragmentation and

improve large landscape management for Species in Greatest Conservation Need. Over 3,000 acres

of easement and fee land protection will focus on projects of High or Outstanding Biodiversity

Significance, especially those adjacent to existing conservation lands. The 1,785 acres of fee

land acquisition will be added to Wildlife

Management Areas, State Forests, and

Scientific and Natural Areas.

RestorationRestoring the wide range of plant

communities found in the Driftless Area

is essential to maintaining the region’s

impressive biodiversity. Returning

communities to healthy conditions improves

their stability, making ongoing management

easier and more effective in the future.

Outdoor Heritage Fund Request: $12,593,000 for:

• 1,825 acres of perpetual

conservation easements.

• 1,785 acres of fee land

acquisition.

• 670 acres of bluff prairie,

savanna, forest restoration

& enhancement.

For more information about this proposal, please contact Rich Biske, Freshwater Conservation Program Director, The Nature Conservancy Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota at rbiske@tnc.org or (612) 331-0766

Southeast Minnesota Protection & Restoration

Phase 8

PartnersThe Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land will complete all

fee-simple land acquisitions in collaboration with the Minnesota DNR. Ad-

ditionally, TNC will also coordinate habitat restoration and enhancement

with DNR.

The Minnesota Land Trust will complete the permanent conservation

easement transactions in partnership with private landowners and resto-

ration and enhancement projects in partnership with USFWS.

What has Been Accomplished to Date in the Program?

ProtectionFee acquisition: Closed or pending on 4,036 acres (105% of goal) includ-

ing 27.5 miles of trout stream (183% of goal).

Completed 3,025 acres of conservation easements (142% of goal).

Restoration/EnhancementRestoration and Enhance completed on 931 acres (96% of goal).

To date, the Southeast Minnesota Protection and Restoration Project

has leveraged $2.5 million of private funds for acquisitions along with

$200,000 in federal funds and $172,000 from easement landowners.

1101 West River Pkwy.Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55415

(612) 331-0700

minnesota@tnc.org

2610 University Ave. W Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55114

(651) 917-2240

Bob.McGillivray@tpl.org

2356 University Ave. W. Suite 240 St. Paul, MN 55114

(651) 647-9590

mnland@mnland.org

MINNESOTA LAND TRUST

A Decision Support Tool for Prioritizing Conservation Easement Opportunities 

The Minnesota Land Trust often employs within its conservation program areas an RFP (Request for 

Proposals) model to both identify high‐quality projects and introduce a level of competition into the 

easement acquisition process. Below, we briefly discuss how the system works and the framework put 

in place to sort the varied opportunities that come before us.  

How the Ranking System Works 

The parcel ranking framework employed through the Minnesota Land Trust’s RFP process is intended as 

a decision support tool to aid in identifying, among the slate of landowners submitting bids for 

conservation easements, the most ecologically significant opportunities for the price. Using this 

framework, the Land Trust and its partners use an array of weighted data sets tailored to the specific 

circumstances inherent in a program area to identify those worthy of consideration.  

It is important to note that this parcel ranking framework enables the Land Trust to rank projects 

relative to one another. That’s important to do, but it’s also important to understand how a project (or 

suite of projects) relates to the ideal situation (i.e., a project that is of exceptional size, condition and 

superb landscape context). If, for example, an RFP generated 20 proposals in a program area, the 

framework would effectively sift among them and identify the relatively good from those relatively 

bad. However, this information alone would not determine whether any of those parcels were of 

sufficient quality to pursue for protection (all may be of insufficient quality to warrant expenditure of 

funds). To solve this problem and make sure ranked projects are high priorities for conservation, we 

step back and evaluate them relative to the ideal ‐ i.e., is each project among the best opportunities for 

conservation we can expect to find in the program area? 

As part of its proposals to LSOHC, the Land Trust included easement sign‐up criteria that laid out at a 

general level the framework utilized by the organization. Below is a more detailed description of the 

process the Land Trust utilizes in ranking potential parcels relative to one another, and identifying 

those with which a conservation easement will be pursued. We also include a ranking form illustrating the representative weighting applied to each criteria. These weightings will be refined as we move forward in applying this approach in each program area. 

The Framework 

We evaluate potential projects based on two primary factors: ecological significance and cost. Both are 

assessed independent of one another.  

Factor 1: Ecological Significance 

The Ecological Significance score is determined by looking at 3 subfactors, each weighted equally (as a 

default). Each of these constitutes 1/3 of the total ecological significance score. 

Subfactors: 

Size or Quantity – the area of the parcel to be protected (how big is it?), length of shoreline, etc.

The bigger the better.

Condition or Quality – the condition of the natural communities and/or target species found on

a parcel. The higher quality the better.

Landscape Context – what’s around the parcel, both ecologically and from a protected status

standpoint. The more ecologically intact the surrounding landscape the better; the extent to

which a parcel builds off of other protected lands to form complexes or corridors, the better.

Note that we have the ability to emphasize one subfactor over another if the specific circumstances 

warrant it, but we begin with a default standard at the onset. At present, all of our geographies are 

using the default standard. 

Indicators: 

A suite of weighted indicators is used to score each parcel relative to each of the above 

subfactors. Indicators are selected based on their ability to effectively inform the scoring of 

parcels relative to each of the respective subfactors.  Weightings for each criterion are assessed 

and vetted to ensure that a set of indicators for each subfactor produces meaningful results, 

then applied across each of the proposed parcels. Finally, we vet and make improvements to 

the scoring matrix when we identify issues or circumstances where results seem erroneous.   

Data sets used for this purpose must offer wall‐to‐wall coverage across the program area to 

ensure that bias for or against parcels does not creep into the equation. Where gaps in such 

coverages exist, we attempt to fill them in to the extent feasible (via field inventory, etc.). 

Finally, we vet and make improvements to the scoring matrix when we identify issues or 

circumstances where results seem erroneous.   

Factor 2: Cost

Cost is a second major factor used in our consideration of parcels. Although ecological significance is the 

primary factor in determining the merits of a project, our RFP programs also strive to make the greatest 

conservation impact with the most efficient use of State funds. As such, we look at the overall cost of 

each project relative to its ecological significance; we also ask landowners to consider donating all or 

some of their easement value to the cause and to better position their proposals. Many landowners 

participate in that fashion. 

Cost, as a primary factor, is assessed independently of the ecological factors.  Given equal ecological 

significance, a project of lower cost will be elevated over those of higher cost in the ranking. That said, 

exceptionally high quality projects are likely to be pursued even if no or modest landowner donation is 

put forward. Alternatively, there are projects offered as full donations that are not moved forward 

because their ecological significance is not acceptable. The degree to which cost factors into the ranking 

of parcels relative to one another is made on a case‐by‐case basis. 

100 Pts ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCEWeighting

Factor Size/Abundance of Habitat (33 points)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weighting Factor

Quality of Natural Resources to be Protected by the Easement (33 points)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weighting Factor Landscape Context (34 points)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COST-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

PriorityPossible

Out

SOUTHEAST BLUFFLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAMConservation Easement Selection Worksheet

COUNTY

b) Ecological Context (15 points)i. Size of Contiguous Ecological Habitat (8 pts)ii. Amount of Ecological Habitat within 3 miles of Property

i. Size of Contiguous Protected Lands (8 pts)ii. Amount of Protected Lands within 3 miles of Property : Protected Land within 0.5 miles of Property (4 pts): Protected Land 0.5-3 miles from Property (3 pts)

SUBTOTAL:

Current Status (30 points)a) Protection Context (15 points)

SITE 11

NotesSITE 12

SITE 6

SITE 7

SITE 8

SITE 9

SITE 10

SITE 1

SITE 2

SITE 3

SITE 4

SITE 5

KEY

TOTAL ECOLOGICAL VALUE POINTS

: Ecological Habitat within 0.5 miles of Property (4 pts): Ecological Habitat 0.5-3 miles from Property (3 pts)

Future Potential (4 points)a) Conservation Plan Context (2 pts)

i. Bid amount ($)/acreii. Estimated donative value ($)/acre

TOTAL ACQUISITION COST ($)

b) Amount of Existing Activity (2 pts)

SUBTOTAL:

a) Size (33 pts): Acres of Habitat to be Protected by an Easement

SUBTOTAL:

a) Habitat Quality (28 pts): Quality of Existing Ecological Systems (Terrestrial & Aquatic)b) Imperiled Species (5 pts): Occurrence of Documented Rare Species on Parcel

SOUTHEAST BLUFFLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM Conservation Easement Selection Worksheet – Scoring and Criteria

Three primary factors when taken together provide a good estimate of long-term viability for biodiversity: 1) Size of the occurrence (species population or example of natural community), 2) Condition of the occurrence, and 3) its Landscape context. This framework is used widely across the world by a large number of conservation organizations and agencies and here in Minnesota by the Minnesota DNR, The Nature Conservancy and others. The Minnesota Land Trust has adopted this practice as well.

In this summary document, we provide an overview of the framework used by the Land Trust in assessing and prioritizing land protection opportunities before the organization.

1. Habitat Size (33 points): Parcels are scored based on acres of habitat to be protected through the easement relative to the largest parcels available for protection in the program area. Although size can pertain to species populations, the size of such populations is often constrained by available habitat. In addition, very little information pertaining to the size of species populations on a given property typically exists, making any determination suspect. Habitat size is a valid indicator in these circumstances.

Scoring: Parcels are scored by how they fall relative to twelve size classes of habitat:

0 pt 1-40 acres 3 pts 41-50 acres 6 pts 51-75 acres 9 pts 76-108 acres 12 pts 109-152 acres 15 pts 153-224 acres 18 pts 225-320 acres 21 pts 321-460 acres 24 pts 461-660 acres 27 pts 661-960 acres 30 pts 961-1380 acres 33 pts >1380 acres

2. Quality of Natural Resources (33 points): Parcels are scored based on the quality or condition of occurrences of ecological communities (habitat) and imperiled species if known. As with Habitat Size above, population data for imperiled species is often minimal on private lands. As such, the condition of score is heavily influenced by the condition of natural communities on a property. However, we do allocate a modest level of points to the presence of imperiled species if they have been documented on a property.

Scoring: Parcels are scored based on the condition of focal ecological community targets – both terrestrial and freshwater – and presence of imperiled species on the property, as such:

a) Habitat Quality (28 points) – The Minnesota Biological Survey natural community element occurrence ranking framework (for terrestrial systems) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fish and insect indices of biotic integrity are used to score habitat quality on parcels, as such:

0 pts Absence of natural communities; fish/insect IBI = 0-10. 4 pts Natural communities averaging D rank; fish/insect IBI = 10-20. 8 pts Natural communities averaging CD rank; fish/insect IBI = 20-40. 12 pts Natural communities averaging C rank; fish/insect IBI = 50-59. 16 pts Natural communities averaging BC rank; fish/insect IBI = 60-69. 20 pts Natural communities averaging B rank; fish/insect IBI = 70-79. 24 pts Natural communities averaging AB rank; IBI = 80-89. 28 pts Natural communities averaging A rank; IBI > 90.

b) Imperiled Species (5 points) – Scoring of the parcel is based on species abundance, as follows:

1 pt 1 occurrence 2 pts 2 occurrences 3 pts 3 occurrences 5 pts 4 or more occurrences

3. Landscape Context (34 points): Parcels are scored based current ecological context of the property and protected lands surrounding it; in addition, points are also allocated based on the likelihood that lands around a parcel will be protected going forward based on the identification of these adjacent lands in respective conservation lands.

Scoring: Parcels are scored based as follows:

a) Protection Context (15 points) – Is calculated based on two subfactors, including size of contiguous protected land (if any) and amount of protected land within 3 miles of the property. Here, we look at two subfactors: i) Amount of protected land (acres) contiguous with the parcel. Scoring of the parcel is based

on the amount of protected land contiguous to the parcel (8 points), as follows:

1 pt 0-80 acres of contiguous protected lands 2 pts 81-320 acres 3 pts 321-640 acres 4 pts 641-960 acres 5 pts 961-1920 acres 6 pts 1921-3840 acres 7 pts 3841-7680 acres 8 pts >7680 acres

ii) Amount of protected lands within a 3-mile radius of the parcel, whether contiguous or not (7 points). Blocks of habitat nearby but not contiguous can also play a very significant role in the maintenance of biodiversity over the long term. In this assessment, we weight protected lands within ½ mile of the parcel higher than those farther removed, and score them separately.

(a) Amount (acres) of protected land within ½ mile of protected property (4 points) – The amount of protected land within ½ mile of the parcel, scored as follows:

1 pt 0-80 acres of protected land

2 pts 81-360 acres 3 pts 361-640 acres 4 pts >640 acres

Amount (acres) of protected land ½-3 miles of the protected property (3 points) –

1 pt 0-640 acres of protected land 2 pts 641-2560 acres 3 pts >2561 acres

b) Ecological Context (15 points) – As with Protection context, ecological context is calculated

based on two subfactors, including size of contiguous ecological habitat (if any) and amount of ecological habitat within 3 miles of the property. i) Amount of ecological habitat (acres) contiguous with the parcel, providing species with

direct access to larger blocks of permanent habitat (8 points). Scoring of the parcel is based on the amount of natural ecological habitat contiguous to the parcel, as follows:

1 pt 0-80 acres of contiguous ecological habitat 2 pts 81-320 acres 3 pts 321-640 acres 4 pts 641-960 acres 5 pts 961-1920 acres 6 pts 1921-3840 acres 7 pts 3841-7680 acres 8 pts >7680 acres

ii) Amount of protected lands within a 3-mile radius of the parcel, whether contiguous or not (7 points). Blocks of habitat nearby, whether contiguous or not play a very significant role in the maintenance of biodiversity over the long term. In this assessment, we weight ecological habitat within ½ mile of the parcel higher than that farther removed, and score them separately.

Amount (acres) of protected land within ½ mile of protected property (4 points) – The amount of protected land within ½ mile of the parcel, scored as follows:

1 pt 0-80 acres of protected land 2 pts 81-360 acres 3 pts 361-640 acres 4 pts >640 acres

Amount (acres) of protected land ½-3 miles of the protected property (3 points) –

1 pt 0-640 acres of protected land 2 pts 641-2560 acres 3 pts >2561 acres

c) Future Potential (4 points) – The degree to which the area within which a parcel lies has been identified as a priority for conservation action and the degree to which action is being

implemented in that area is a direct indicator of the long-term potential for maintenance of biodiversity associated with a parcel. Lands affiliated with priority areas are more likely to be complemented with additional levels of nearby protected lands than those outside of priority areas. In areas experiencing high levels of development, this factor may carry a significant amount of weight in setting protection priorities.

Scoring: Parcels are scored based on two subfactors: 1) their position relative to priority areas identified in statewide or local planning efforts, and 2) the degree to which action is being implemented within a priority area.

0 pts Parcel not within priority area 1 pt Parcel within priority area; minimal activity occurring 2 pts Parcel within priority area; modest activity occurring 3 pts Parcel within priority area; good levels of activity occurring 4 pts Parcel within priority area; high levels of activity occurring

Southeast Minnesota Protection and Restoration

Parcels are reviewed by both a Division of MN DNR and Conservancy to ensure that they meet the priorities of both partners.

Criteria for identification of key conservation parcels.

State-owned properties represent significant blocks of ownership in Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) in Southeast Minnesota as identified by Landscape Stewardship Plans and present opportunities for targeted stewardship. Where landscape stewardship plans and identified Conservation Opportunity Areas do not exist, core areas are identified by the Areas of Significant Native Biodiversity Significance. State-owned lands containing mapped native plant communities were selected as a starting point. Additional management acreage and contiguous land cover were increased by selecting adjoining parcels of private land that met certain criteria. This initial private parcel selection was made using the following criteria, with each parcel satisfying all points (Figure 1):

• Parcel is within Conservation Opportunity Area or Area of Significant Native Biodiversity (allows for large landscape management and management efficiencies, i.e. large scale Rx fire)

• Parcel contains an Minnesota Biological Survey mapped native plant community • Parcel was equal to or greater than 80 acres in size • Parcel property line began within ¼ mile of a state-owned parcel • A Conservation Partner is willing to accept the property/meets partner objectives (SNA, WMA,

Forestry) • Willing seller

Some land parcels were selected for stewardship activities, while others were chosen for potential acquisition or conservation easement purchase.

Where multiple units of conservation lands exist within a COA , habitat corridors may need to be established to support the larger landscape and identified core areas. Parcels within an identified corridor should meet the following criteria:

• Between 2 conservation land units • Within ½ mile of existing conservation land unit • Contain more than 50% habitat

Figure 1. Example of parcels identified for stewardship activities in Pine Creek/Rushford Conservation Opportunity Area. The selected private parcels meet criteria and are considered for acquisition, easement, or management.